Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds real value by naming the cascade ('samt seiner Properties') and emphasizing irreversibility with no undo. It does not say whether links or comments attached to the object are also removed, which is the remaining gap for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The operational content is front-loaded in three tight sentences with the destructive warning first. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword block is search-oriented filler that slightly dilutes an otherwise efficient definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential context: irreversibility, cascading deletion of properties, and escape hatches. Only the treatment of dependent links/comments is left unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'udid' is documented there as 'Objekt-udid', so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, scope, or validation detail beyond it — the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ein Objekt unwiderruflich loeschen') and adds scope: the object's properties are removed with it. An agent can distinguish this from onto_object_update or onto_object_bulk_action without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly bounds usage ('nur, wenn der Datensatz wirklich entfallen soll — es gibt kein Undo') and routes to two named alternatives: onto_object_set_property for deactivate/archive and onto_object_bulk_action for multiple objects. This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.